PSD to HTML is not dead
This is a high-brow flame war. The last post bothered me, and this one bothers me all the same. Let's cut the shit for a minute and examine the lay of the land.
"PSD to HTML is dead" panders well to developers. But it doesn't make it true. Let's dig a little deeper into why a developer may want to believe that the incredible toolset contained within Photoshop is completely useless and unnecessary: The inability to use Photoshop.
No one is slicing and cropping a PSD into images anymore. If there are still some who believe that, you need to spend some time talking to designers and front-end web developers. There's really no excuse for this misinformation.
I'm not arguing for Photoshop here. I'm arguing for a design reference point – something that has been created by a (web/UI) designer, for the purposes of reference. It can be a piece of paper, Photoshop, etc. Photoshop makes it easy to manipulate a design. That's it – the central reason for using Photoshop. Moving divs around, adjusting CSS or erasing pencil off a piece of paper is never going to be as efficient as clicking on a layer and moving, resizing it, etc. That's just the reality of why Photoshop is used. This "debate" is reckless abandonment of logic, or simply passive-aggressive anti-design irreverence.
When a front-end/UI developer has a reference for their layouts, it allows them to skip over "where does this go?" and get to their actual job. Some developers are agile enough to extrapolate other form factors based on how the design is structured. Some developers need a desktop, mobile, and tablet design to reference. At the end of the day, no one is slicing images. I am just trying to understand what the actual argument is.
I can only assume that most would agree that an architectural design is essential for constructing a building. Are we really arguing that we don't need a solid foundation to start building from?
The problem seems to be how "PSD to HTML" is defined. The old definition of PSD to HTML frankly may have died about the time we stopped using tables to create designs in HTML.
In the yesteryears "graphic" designers designed pixel perfect designs in Photoshop and expected web designers to convert these to xhtml/css.
It was a royal pain in the ass. I have been on both ends of this.
But things are very different now, the old definition of "PSD to HTML" has died or rather evolved.
I still create the first drafts of the desktop design in Photoshop, its simply easier to do when you'd like to try various designs. But hand code it from there. No more splicing etc.
This process also makes it easier for me to visualize the code structure for mobile first(in my mind).
Says the company whose entire business model is built around PSD to HTML conversion.
Sometimes one works better than the other for a project's specific needs. And vice versa. What we are needing to get past is pixel-perfect design, however.
So some folks like doing it one way, others like doing it another. Both groups think their way is better, and can give arguments in their favour.
In reality, the right decision comes down to the project goals, the deadlines, the budget, the resources, the staff, and many other factors.
This whole 'debate' has about as much depth as "should I put ketchup or barbecue sauce on my chips?".
A designer I work with hands me AI files that I'm then meant to convert to a WordPress theme. She knows near zero about coding. It's a nightmare and I'm constantly in battle of functionality and her wanting things pixel perfect. The worst is that she hands over the designs to the clients who do not understand that it will not be pixel perfect and many things will change.
The definition of PSD to HTML used is just too lose. PSD to HTML will never be dead because images are the best medium to exchange visual ideas. Which, in the case of Web, are translated to HTML. So yeah, we will be using PSDs and translating them HTML in some way or another for the foreseeable future. Simply the good designers are evolving and more aware of what's doable, what's doable but pain in the ass to do, and what's not doable. And that's enough. I don't expect, and don't want, the designer to give me the design in HTML/CSS unless he/she is an expert in them for a bunch of reasons.
I believe that more or less sums up the sensationalist headlines.
Look, designers can stick to making the website look amazing in photoshop, but let the engineers actually tell you what's possible or not using simple, responsive practices. Don't expect pixel perfect, do expect lean websites built to last.
Now that we finally have effects like shadows, gradients, and rounded corners in CSS, the trend is towards flat design. Some webpage layouts I made ten years ago look surprisingly modern again.
The typical PSD to HTML approach will evolve over time to {insert-tool}2 HTML. Since web design was a big boost for Photoshop over the years, Adobe is not going to let that audience disappear without a fight. Their Edge tools, such as Reflow (http://html.adobe.com/edge/reflow/) are the response to this trend.
Although typical all-in-one design/developers might prefer mocking-up and developing in straight HTML/CSS, there will always be a large audience that prefers visual tools. The opportunity is there for other companies to fill this need--Sketch.app comes to mind. Frameworks such as Bootstrap, Foundation, Skeleton, etc. also fill some of the demand.
Responsive design is still new to many and designers will still use Photoshop for quite a while.
> Adobe is trying to overcome Photoshop’s limitations for modern web design.
So Adobe has realized that PSD to HTML workflow is dying and tries to develop tools for the modern web workflow to stay relevant. I don't get how this argument supports author's assessment.
On the other hand external services like xhtmlized are a great way to push a website out of the door when you're an agency rooted in marketing/visual design and need to add a website to the package to get the deal. Your designers do the design, then a professional service like this will make the final product orders of magnitude better than what you could achieve without internal dev team.
Personally, I feel like the author is trying to suggest that something like Photoshop is an easier way to build a UI due to the somewhat drag-and-drop nature as well as the instant ability to view the result. Right now, I think both of these are trumped by modern tools: CSS's exactness and variety of properties now allow for more precise design decisions in terms of layout and structure, and its actually faster to develop in the browser iteratively using the DevTools, being able to see the final product.
What about those IT departments that do Powerpoint to HTML? :)
>do we really think that Adobe isn’t aware that Photoshop is becoming less suitable for modern web development process? Do we think that they will just sit there and watch their flag-ship and de-facto standard in web design become a plain photo editor?...All these actions show that Adobe is trying to overcome Photoshop’s limitations for modern web design.
If your business depends on Adobe's competence you may want to have a contingency plan.
Hahaha. Someone feels threatened. I guess they will always ave business with those who can make gradient buttons in Photoshop, but not the actual CSS for it.
So it's just pining for the Fjords? No - it's dead and responsive and mobile load times in the graphic heavy sites it produced have killed it.
The concept of psd to html is dumb from the start.
I would not hire one translator to translate from Russian to English, when the Translator only barely understands English, and one other second translator who Fixes the first translators work.
If you are designer looking to get off the 'PSD to HTML' train, this is the perfect resource for you:
What is needed I think is some sort of visual design tool, maybe not full WYSIWYG which respects and understands template languages rather than bulldozing everything.
Eew, it's like they're bringing back Dreamweaver with all those code generators.
Sorry to disagree, but it is dead, at least to me.
Blog posts about PSD to HTML are not dead.
Some necrophobes earn their own fates.
I wish it would die.